DES MOINES, Iowa -- There's been a lot of focus on ensuring safe, affordable drinking water from public systems in Iowa’s urban centers. But some groups believe just as much attention is needed in rural communities.

Stephanie Enloe, program associate with the Center for Rural Affairs, said most of the more-than 500 water systems in Iowa susceptible to contamination are in rural areas, and nutrients and sediment in surface water are among the culprits. She argues that approaching the problem at the watershed level could help build better collaboration between rural and urban communities

"We're seeing this rural/urban divide grow in Iowa, and part of that is over the water quality debate. And there's a lot of blame game going on,” Enloe said. “So farmers are really feeling the need to come up with some solutions here."

She said farmers can bring insight from the grassroots level when strategies for watershed management are considered. And by working together, she said people can ensure the right projects are implemented in the most effective places in their area - which might mean cover-cropping or developing alternative uses for marginal land.

State lawmakers have proposed several bills to improve funding for water-quality management programs. Enloe said there is also talk of passing a three-eighths of a cent sales tax increase to fund the dormant Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund;

"Which would raise between $150 and $180 million a year for things like watershed planning, supporting local watershed groups, cost-share practices, lake restoration; and then also, supporting outdoor recreation investments that bring economic opportunity to rural communities,” she said.

Last week, the House Agriculture Committee approved House Study Bill 135, that would levy a 6 cent excise tax on water sales to support collaborative water quality efforts around Iowa.


get more stories like this via email

National Rivers Month comes to an end this week and conservation groups said it is a reminder more action is needed to protect Idaho's rivers.

The state is home to more than 107,000 miles of river, providing drinking water, hydropower, tourism and recreational opportunities like rafting and angling.

Stephen Pfieffer, conservation associate for Idaho Rivers United, said only a small portion of the state's river miles have the strongest type of federal protections.

"Only 1% of the rivers here in Idaho are protected via Wild and Scenic River designations," Pfieffer pointed out. "There's a lot of opportunities to give more stretches of river, that people like to recreate on or might rely on, protections that they deserve."

Idaho is home to two of the eight rivers originally protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968: the Middle Fork of the Clearwater River and the Middle Fork of the Salmon River. About 890 miles of river in Idaho are protected under the designation today.

The Snake River also flows through Idaho. The Biden administration has been studying four dams on the lower part of the Snake River in eastern Washington and their effect on fish populations migrating to and from Idaho. Last week, the administration announced the Columbia Basin Task Force to further examine the impact of those dams. Pfieffer said salmon and steelhead numbers are dwindling because of the dams.

"It all boils down to the fact that our wild salmon and steelhead don't have much time," Pfieffer emphasized. "But if we take these actions now we can get them to a place where populations can stabilize, and are in fact recovering, in the event of dam removal."

Supporters of the dams said they provide hydropower to the region, as well as enabling other uses for the river, like barging and irrigation.

Pfieffer added National Rivers Month is not only about threats to rivers, it is about enjoying what they offer.

"Idaho has so many amazing stretches of river and there might be an amazing stretch right in your backyard that's just waiting to be explored," Pfieffer observed.


get more stories like this via email

A New York City bill is a catch-22 for removing lead pipes. The so-called "Rotten Apple Bill" makes city property owners remove their home's lead service lines and threatens financial penalties if they fail to comply.

Up to 41% of water service lines have or may have lead in them.

Valerie Baron, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, applauded the bill's intent but argued there are better ways to address lead service lines. She said problems can arise when property owners organize line replacement work.

"You might be digging up the street six, seven, eight different times for example," Baron pointed out. "It's also confusing. It makes it difficult to get the proper health safeguards in place, and it's not cost-effective."

Baron contended an effective program requires a mandate for lead pipe removal with the city conducting the work at no cost to homeowners. The state has received funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to replace pipes. But she noted if New York City passes the buck to homeowners, they run the risk of being ineligible for the large pot of money. State dollars have been set aside for this purpose but they do not match federal funds.

Other concerns are the health hazards of removing lead pipes. Disturbing a lead pipe can dislodge little bits of lead and further contaminate the area. Baron noted creating a centralized program ensures a home's pipes are flushed properly and the water is filtered for six months. She stressed the bill's penalties could harm the wrong people.

"It would be a $1,000 fine if you don't get that pipe out," Baron emphasized. "We're concerned that either some landlords might choose to take that fine as the cost of doing business, or other families that couldn't afford the pipe replacement won't be able to afford that $1,000 either."

The push comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing a new Lead and Copper Rule, which is expected to give municipalities nationwide 10 years to replace all existing lead pipes. There are some exceptions. The EPA's new rule could take effect in 2027.


get more stories like this via email

A Michigan nonprofit dedicated to keeping oil out of the Great Lakes is celebrating a major victory.

A federal Appellate Court has ruled that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's 2019 lawsuit against Canadian oil company Enbridge belongs back in state court.

Nessel's lawsuit aims to shut down part of the Line 5 petroleum pipeline beneath the Straits of Mackinac over concerns of a potential oil spill.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals discovered that Enbridge moved the case from state court to federal court more than two years past the deadline for changing jurisdictions.

Sean McBrearty is campaign coordinator for the group Oil and Water Don't Mix, and the Michigan director for Clean Water Action. He said the appellate court's ruling is justified, because Nessel sued Enbridge under the State Public Trust Doctrine and the State Environmental Policy Act.

"Essentially what the doctrine says is that the waters and bottom lands of the state are owned by the people," said McBrearty, "and it's the duty of the state government to care for them in perpetuity."

In response, Enbridge issued a statement that says in part that they are disappointed in the Appellate court's decision, and they believe "the case should remain in federal court given the clear and substantial questions of federal law raised by the attorney general's complaint."

Line 5 transports petroleum products from northwestern Wisconsin through Michigan into Ontario, threading through the Straits of Mackinac.

McBrearty underscored that his organization's concerns about the pipeline and the potential for a catastrophic oil spill are rooted in scientific evidence.

"We have a now 71-year-old pipeline, that was made to last 50 years," said McBrearty, "running every day through what scientists call the most dangerous spot in the Great Lakes for an oil spill."

Enbridge maintains that Line 5's safety is exclusively regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

The case will return to Michigan's 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County.